Joe Bauer

Was Ms. Foster's husband ever interviewed by the authorities or anyone else?

Did he run ahead of her toward Elm street and maybe near the death scene like her?

Did he get any pictures of JFK at the time if the shooting?

His pictures were never found or shown according to Ms. Foster?

It would have been equally interesting to have heard his commentary regards being at least somewhere near the scene at the time of the shooting and perhaps corroborating his wife's remembrances of what she claims to have witnessed also.

Too bad he has passed.

Understood and agreed Richard Price.

To go back to the original thread then;

any thoughts on the 50 Reasons For 50 Years series and the facts presented in this?

Just read the Toni Foster interview transcript.

Ms Foster definitely has classic Post Traumatic Stress symptoms from her up close ( 40 feet?) JFK murder eye witness experience.

Deeply effecting feelings of shock, sadness and probably depression that she says come back into her thoughts every November for the rest of her life.

Her graphic description of JFK's head exploding and blood stained Jackie Kennedy screaming and in risky behavior shock still grip you with great sadness and heart breaking empathy.

I believe we need to occasionally but regularly revisit this event and it's monstrously brutal reality. Like the Jewish people do regards the holocaust.

To keep it's importance in mind, especially in JFK's murder since it's perpetrators have never been identified.

At least the Jewish people knew who slaughtered them and some justice was prevailed against those evil monster criminals.

Just now, David Andrews said:

I couldn't find the Debra Conway article Steve cited, but then I did, so I deleted my help request.

Oh, I see.  I also just found the Toni Foster- Debra Conway article and am reading this now.

I found it by typing in Toni Foster - JFK.

23 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Delete, thanks

???

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know off hand, but one might be Phil Buchen.

 

I made an error in that narration.  Nixon was not actually impeached.  Impeachment proceedings were initiated in the House, and three articles of impeachment were approved.  But the entire House had not voted on them yet.

What happened was that Goldwater and Hugh Scott went up to visit him at the WH and told him that he had no chance of surviving a trial in the senate.  That he should resign and that way he would preserve some of his dignity and probably some of his personal benefits as an ex president.  So he did.

BTW Joe, what Ford did, and very few people acknowledge this--although I tried to hint at it--is he brought Paul Nitze's group into the White House called the Committee on the Present Danger.  This group of rightwing crazies thought that Kissinger and Nixon WERE TOO LIBERAL!  And they outflanked Kissinger and were allowed to go head to head with the CIA on the Soviet threat.  And its through all this that fruitcakes like Richard Perle and Democrat turned Republican Jeanne Kirkpatrick started the Neoconservative movement which would really flourish under Reagan.  If you recall, Cheney did the same thing under W in order to manufacture the Mushroom cloud myth about Hussein and Iraq.

With what Ford did, Kennedy's foreign policy--which had been altered and then reversed by LBJ and RMN--was now extinct.  It became something that people like us talk about on sites like this.  It became a relic in a museum.

What a sad reality since the loss of JFK.

Any thoughts as to how the Trump equation fits into this evolution?

In that Oval Office photo of Ford, who are the two others in the room besides Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Nelson Rockefeller?  

That's almost the whole "New World Order" group right there in one sitting ... minus George Bush and David Rockefeller.

"The car stopped."

She was right there, just feet away.

Can anyone adequately dispute her observation in an honest and logical way?

Especially if they weren't there themselves?

Flesh and blood everywhere. Sprayed in the air and onto the car and even others several feet behind the limo?

What a horrific scene in front of hundreds in broad daylight.

I'll bet that the majority of those present on Elm street that day had post traumatic stress symptoms afterwards.  Such as the occasional bad dream or spontaneous flashback accompanied with an upset feeling of shock, dread, depression and sadness. 

What a brutal public way to murder anyone, let alone our sitting president.

Whoever murdered JFK ( ordered this ) and in this manner were pure unevolved Neanderthal brutes of our darker genetic past.

If the generations of Americans born just before or after John F. Kennedy could have personally seen, felt and experienced his inspiring and physically and intelligently attractive energy as our president as we did ( versus any since ) those poll numbers would shift dramatically higher in his favor in this popularity poll.  

No shared stories by grandpa or primary school book history reading can adequately imbue the true sense of this reality.

JFK was by far the most inspiring president to the younger generation of his time.

And he was absolutely the most inspiring U.S. President to the rest of the world during his time also.

Not the wealthiest of the world, but to the majority of world citizens beneath this highest echelon economic class.

Never have we seen such adoration overseas in response to his personal visits there. Massive public crowds cheering wildly like never before or since.

To the other extreme, never before have we seen such large number public demonstration reactions overseas to our president's visits like our current president.

10's of thousands cheering "derisively" with signs and other forms of public display expressing protest, concern and dislike.

It's embarrassing and even disturbing to see how upset and disliking our allies citizens have become toward our highest level representative and his belligerent policies, comments and personality. 

Putting down their own leaders in their own country, insultingly throwing candy toward them and chastising them and their policies with a scowling face are not our finest examples of diplomatic respect, courtesy and proper protocol.

Makes one feel the loss of JFK all the more.

Referring back to the original post I thought I would share an interesting link that talks about something extremely ominous regarding the new high tech abilities probably many groups of high authority and power now possess if they want to take someone out like they did during JFK times.

I post this link because I think it does tie into the original thread's questions and concerns regarding covert "hits" made on JFK connected parties from a historical perspective.

The link reveals how far power groups have come in the advancement of ways to eliminate targets. From karate chops to the neck,  fake police gun play and staged scene drug overdoses ( Monroe and Kilgallen ? ) to the simple push of a radio transmitter button?

This You Tube video is a talk by the Speilberg "Catch Me If You Can" film subject Frank Abagnale.  His true life story is almost unbelievable.

He was offered employment by the FBI after finally being caught in his amazing multiple impersonations crime spree. 

In this talk Abagnale relates his story from childhood through his crime spree to being caught and imprisoned and ending with his career at the FBI. 

He talks about Speilberg's film and what was accurate and not so.

At the 55 minute mark in the video Abagnale also talks about new security technologies and procedures including how, up to a 35 foot distance, "they" can shut off or speed up electronic health devices such as pacemakers to assassinate people and how in 5 years they will be able to do this from satellites in space.

He also says that we now have the ability to shut down automobile functions from another vehicle. This includes activating air bags, locking of doors and shutting off of electric window motors and engines, etc.

Abagnale also says internet and phone passwords are now a thing of the past.

Abagnale presents these ominous new technologies in his own positive view as crime prevention, but as history has always shown us, the potential for misuse is always there and this technology will most probably be misused by someone nefarious at some point.

From JFK to current times, things have changed so much in ominous ways which will give the abusers of power even more ways to do this.  

It's important to be aware of such things.

If you don't want to view the whole talk, you might just view this from the 55 minute mark.

On 4/8/2011 at 7:49 PM, Peter McGuire said:

It is indeed amazing that the Warren Commission chose to believe a murderer over a respected newsman!

Not just a murderer. An extremely mentally unbalanced one.

How could anyone on the Warren Commission suffer through hours and hours of Ruby's crazy meanderings and paranoid break down thoughts and then justify placing such a person's word over someone of Seth Kantor's character, career achievements and mental health.

Kantor's resume even included serving in the Marine Corps during WW II.

This specific irrational credibility decision by the Warren Commission defies logic to such a degree it's disturbing. 

Surprised this one issue wasn't brought up more in interviews of the WC members later.

Douglas C. ... I see. 

Merritt is still alive?

And if what he has to share is about something unimportant, why keep this secret?

Suspicion is warranted.

Douglas C.

Amazing that you were in the main perp legal defense mix in Watergate in 1972...and here you are today (46 years later ) still trying to share what you personally know about important Trumpgate figures in the interest of revealing possible crime committing truths!

That dual 50 years apart highest importance historical event participation is a remarkable achievement and legacy.

And to think you were also raised in New Orleans at the same time as and not far from just a year younger Lee Harvey Oswald and the nefarious Guy Banister on top of this? 

Talk about interesting fate.

Again, regarding your Coast To Coast interview last night;

I commend George Noory for giving you national exposure air time as often as he has.

Although I have come to not feeling sure about where Noory truly stands politically.

Some say his interview takes have to be somewhat agreeable to his political guest's ideology ( no matter how divisively divergent they are ) to maintain professional neutrality which he seemed to consciously do in his first few years as host of C 2 C.

However, over the years my observation sense is that he is personally moved to the right and much more aligned himself with the Trump/ Roger Stone /Jerome Corsi /Alex Jones political view mentality.

Yes, Noory still has some socially progressive guests on his show but his interview banter with the higher number far right ones I mentioned ( and others ) has become noticeably much more agreeably supportive and enthusiastic in the last 10 years  IMO.

Any more info on the Nixon WH time capsule letter story DC?

Jackie had all the right social and personal qualifications, traits, skills, disciplines and even beauty to be a perfect First Lady.

Listened to you last night on Coast To Coast AM last night Douglas C.

As always, very interesting and well presented.

I can remember feeling a little uneasy when the comedy show "Hogan's Heroes" first debuted on national TV back in 1965.

This was a totally silly comedic version of the film "Stalag 17" which itself even exhibited a little humor but in a much more serious tone.

I was only 14 at the time but I had already been very exposed to and emotionally effected by the horrors of the Nazis and WW II of just 20 years earlier that was so widely depicted in all forms of our media and history books, that any entertainment venue trying to find humor in anything Nazi was still a little uncomfortable, even for me as an American teenager.

I was a "Combat" TV show fan before "Hogan's Heroes."  Quite a leap from serious to silly.

Later, after exposure to Mel Brooks, Peter Sellers and Dick Shawn etc. clowning in this vein, you got more numb to it all.

I imagine that in the Nazis death camps, that the innate human nature sense of humor occasionally popped up even there. Rarely one can be sure, but for any reason at all, simply to try anything to get one's mind off all the unfathomable suffering all around if even for a few seconds?

It's a touchy area of political, social and moral correctness conflict anyway you look at it.

However, I do still feel a little uncomfortable regards trying to find any humor in the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations. I suppose my emotional connections to these tragic deaths and losses to humanity are too personal?

And who could find humor with genocide?

How about the U.S.S. Liberty? The Tuskegee Syphilis non-consensual experiment on uninformed black Americans?

I believe Jack Ruby lied in his last "death bed" interview with his claims that he killed Oswald impulsively and not as part of any conspiracy.

I believe he did so to protect his surviving family.

To protect them from possible organized crime ( or other power groups  ) retaliation if he told the conspiracy truth and also to spare them the legacy of such a despicable Earth shaking crime connected to him that people might hold against them for generations.

Ruby's recorded comments to a microphone holding reporter ( available on You Tube ) asking him questions while he was in custody but being moved to someplace outside his jail cell...that the answer to the reporter's question was "if Adlai Stevenson had been vice president the assassination of our beloved president wouldn't have happened."  And "the answer is the man in office now."

And Ruby's hand passed note ( also reported on You Tube ) to sheriff Al Maddox which read that "it was a conspiracy and his motive was to silence Oswald."

Ruby says in another recorded interview that there are very powerful people/groups who don't want the true facts to come above board to the world.

Very clearly conspiracy claiming statements.  But so contradictory to his death bed statement.

Ruby had lied so much previously and with his contrary "no conspiracy" death bed comments...you aren't sure what to believe.

Let us not forget this cold blooded reality;

The man brutally shot Oswald...to death!

A man vulnerable and unable to defend himself.

It was really a cowardly and extremely selfish act. The act of a bullying sociopath.

And I don't recall ever seeing or hearing Ruby express any remorse for inflicting the "ultimate" painful and death causing injury to Oswald nor the loss this created for Oswald's wife, children and brother.

Ruby gets teary-eyed however talking about ( his "beloved President") JFK's murder and Jackie's loss?

Same with his constantly expressing deep worry, concern and empathy for his own siblings and their safety and reputation losses with his circumstances of charges, incarceration and feared imminent death.

To me, Ruby's so-called "nice caring guy" side is sociopathically selective.

Same with his truth telling motivations.  Not worth giving him much benefit-of-the-doubt credit, credibility or trust IMO.

I imagine also Ruby not feeling any remorse at all for the many men he probably injured by pummeling and/or throwing them down stairs in his years of being his own bouncer in his clubs. Or in other situations where someone offended him and triggered his explosive pit bull violence against them.

Ruby seemed to relish this beating up others "tough guy" action and the image and reputation that came with it.

Just feel it's important to balance somewhat this sometimes too sympathetic view of Jack Ruby and his perceived intentions of wanting to tell the full truth in his claims made while in custody.

He was a hot headed, gambling organizing and gun running pimp who liked beating the crap out of people and making money off of misguided young women who more often than not had to strip because they were simply poor.

A man who idolized organized crime figure Lewis McWillie more than any Kennedy.

Jack Ruby robbed us all of something important beyond words in murdering Lee Harvey Oswald.

Not a historical figure I look upon with any feeling except angry contempt.

And Henry Wade's another one.  His pretending not to know Jack Ruby in his news interviews the weekend of 11,22 thru 11,24, 1963 were pathetic and totally exposed him as a XXing you know what.

Robert, talk about making someone laugh!

Comparing reading Ruby's monologue to "water boarding" in regards to what would be more or less torturous ... Ha!  That made my morning.

After reading most of the Ruby's manic, meandering, mindless and exhausting ramblings in your latest posting of this,  I needed something light and humorous to balance out the disturbing heaviness of it all.

Regards your comparative relationship thoughts on Bullxxxxing and bluffing and lying, it seems to sum up my feelings about what we are currently seeing with ...well... you know who. 

Ruby's interview testimony ( I assume he was under oath? ) is really tough to stay with.

Never ending, constant rambling and repeating of inane thoughts and feelings.

Ruby so clearly evaded answering the questions regarding meeting with Officer Tippit in his club.

Never answered the repeated question. Immediately rambled on and away from it.

Ruby does the same thing regards the question of his carrying a gun into the DPD Friday night.

Ruby's stop over in New Orleans on his way to Florida and then Cuba made no sense and his vague and weak answer reasons for doing so were neglected by his questioners. Why fly to New Orleans instead of a direct flight to Florida? To buy some rum and have a nice chat with his Delta Airlines buddies? Or, to talk with Carlos Marcello himself?

Did Warren, Ford , Rankin, etc  ask Ruby any more about his reported early afternoon Parkland hospital visit on 11,22,1963 in this exchange? As described by the credible journalist Seth Kantor whose sworn WC testimony they chose to dismiss over crazy lying Jack Ruby's?

Look Jack, put down the kosher deli sandwich and tell us again why you holed up in the Dallas Newspaper office the entire time your "beloved" President and his beautiful wife's motorcade was passing just a block or two below you and you wouldn't even try to get a glimpse of them through an office window?

Just read your review Jim Di.

Very enlightening and thought provoking as always.

I feel you should post so many your reviews in their full content state straight away in your initial threads versus a link to them. 

I click on the links to read your reviews but my guess is many on the forum do not, maybe because it means committing extra time and effort to thoroughly read them beyond the initial thread commitment?

Like I've mentioned before, your forum contributions ( especially your K&K links ) have been extremely educational and informing for me personally as a neophyte JFK truth seeker and overall historical truth seeker. 

The Russians did obliterate the Nazis armies much more than we did. The German people were subjected to extreme impoverished suffering far longer and more brutally than they should have after their army's surrender. The German POW's probably did suffer more than reported. 

One can totally respect and honor the massive effort and commitment and sacrifices we gave toward defeating world leadership threatening monsters of brutality like Hitler and his Nazis and the Imperial Japanese armies in World War II ( we really did save the world ) and still tell the full and sometimes ugly truths regarding great life costing and suffering mistakes and immoral decisions "we" were responsible for during this historical event time. 

War truly is Hell. With evil coming from all directions. We all know that.

Telling the full truths in this historical realm does not diminish our truly world saving heroic efforts and achievements.

Lying about, excluding and burying or even down playing significant parts of the full historical truth does.

Why Tom Hanks feels motivated to produce major budget and distribution films based on our most important real life historical events in the light that he does befuddles me. His confidence in his ability to do this as a qualified historian does also.

Spielberg is another mystery in this same vein.

Well, at least truth telling justice prevailed with Hank's "Parkland" film being so rejected at the major distribution box office it is now in the public record as one of the all time box office bombs ( production cost versus ticket sales ) in modern film history.

Which part of Little Lynn's interview with S.S. agent Warner do we believe more.

The first part with her claim:

At the beginning of the above interview Mrs. Carlin was highly agitated and was reluctant to make any statement to me. "She stated to me that she was under the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and other individuals unknown to her, were involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy and that she would be killed if she gave any information to the authorities."

It was only through the aid of her husband that she would give any information at all. She twisted in her chair, stammered in her speech, and seemed on the point of hysteria.

Or the later art of her interview:

Later, toward the end of the interview, which lasted about 45 minutes, Mrs. Carlin became much calmer. She stated that "she had no memory of Oswald whatsoever until she had heard Mr. Dewar's statement repeated on television. Also that she had no information in her possession which indicated that Ruby was involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy." She did ask that all information she had related be kept confidential to prevent retaliation against her in case there was a plot afoot. She stated that she did not wish to get involved in the matter at hand.

It's remarkable to me that Little Lynn would make such a bold and incriminating statement about Ruby and Oswald being part of a JFK plot right off the top of her head with her first interview.

Obviously, if she didn't know this for sure, she at least considered it with enough belief to state this to her first official government agent interviewer.

Little Lynn always mentioned she didn't want to state her true feelings about the whole affair. She was fearful. She was caught carrying a gun at Jack Ruby's trial. That's how fearful she was regards concern for her personal safety.  Why be fearful if she totally thought that Jack Ruby just did what he did out of innocent well meaning love for Jackie and outrage over JFK's killing.

Karen " Little Lynn" Bennett knew more than she ever let on. And she knew how deadly serious people were who were connected to Jack Ruby.

I believe she had been already been used as a prostitute and probably been pressured to have sex with members of the mob that controlled this circuit she was placed in.

Both Robert and Marguerite Oswald were around Lee Harvey Oswald before he joined the Marines including up until his joining the Marines.

And when Robert's brother and Marguerite's son Lee returned from Russia, they never said this returning Lee didn't look or act different from the Lee they knew.

Did they ever describe their brother and son as 40 lbs heavier than the Lee they knew, or wearing glasses or smiling a lot versus not?

If the Lee Oswald that Dick Bullock worked and bunked with was really that different looking and acting than the Lee Oswald that Ruby shot and killed, then one must assume ( if Bullock is telling the truth ) that someone in our intelligence agencies purposely planted a fake Oswald at Atsugi.

Maybe this was done to establish the real Oswald's military background claims bonafides to help get him into Russia?  Perhaps the real Oswald was back in the states studying the Russian language while the fake Oswald was in Japan?

As quite and unassuming as Oswald was described as being and acting by others who saw him at the Beckley rooming house, it was definitely possible that Oswald could have spent some time out of his room without Mrs. Robert's awareness.

It would make sense that Oswald would want to see and hear General Walker in person.

And he had the chance to do so living in the same home town and with access to Walker's appearances not being tightly screened.

Did Oswald's North Beckley rooming house live in maid Earline Roberts ever state that Oswald did occasionally leave in the evenings or come back to his room later than normal end of day working hours?